State of the primaries

Our most recent primary, South Carolina. counties won by Romney in orange, Gingrich in purple. Released in to public domain

New Hampshire primary by town. Orange is Romney, Gold is Paul, Crimson Huntsman. Public Domain

Iowa caucus by county. Orange is Romney, gold is Paul, dark green Santorum, dark blue Perry. Public Domain

At this point in the Primary season, all three primaries thus far were won by separate candidates. Iowa was taken by Santorum, New Hampshire by Romney in a landslide, and South Carolina by Gingrich in a landslide. The number of delegates so far per candidate is 31 Mitt Romney, 26 Newt Gingrich, 10 for Ron Paul and 8 for Santorum. 2nd placers include Romney in South Carolina and Iowa, and Paul in New Hampshire.

Prior to this point, there were a whole bunch of shooting star candidates, starting with Michelle Bachmann at the beginning of the year and continuing with Rick Perry, Herman Cain, and then Newt Gingrich. All of them followed nearly the same trajectory, a steep graphed chart for the RCP Polling Average in all 50 states, reaching a peak, and then coming down with the same velocity that they arose, like a little boy throwing a ball. Then, Gingrich took South Carolina, by a landslide, and all the sudden everything changed. What's more, the very last of these trajectory candidates, Santorum, is still on the map and is looking strong in the Florida Panhandle.

Even before this surprising result of three states in three hands, we should've known we would be in for a very different primary season. The historic nature of this election had forced turnout way up. The Tea Party had greatly changed the Republican Party in the last 2 years. Several major candidates (including Gingrich and Santorum) failed to make the ballot in a couple states. Lastly, RNC rule changes made all early primary states proportional representation out to at least 3rd place, bringing the traditional early state landslide to an end. Now, at this moment, we see not a short primary season of the 2004 or 2000 variety effectively ending on Super Tuesday but a protacted 50 state duel between Gingrich, Romney, Santorum and Paul. Paul inevitably wins Virginia, as he is the only candidate on the ballot besides Romney and 60% of Republicans will not vote for Romney under any condition, and so then Paul too shall be right up there with the victors of our three early states.

So what precisely brought us to this point? There is a growing sense in both parties that the same puppet masters control both, and yet there was always a percentage that either refused to accept this conclusion or was comfortable with it. Add in a few Mormons and a few New England moderates, and you have Mitt Romney, the inevitable one.

But this time around, too much had been done, and the Tea Party was too fully aware that it had rescued the GOP from the dustbin of history. Revenge was desired. Many candidates came forward, and the GOP being a new movement with few experienced members, most of them were of fairly low caliber. As a result, they were catapulted with vengeance, recognized, and then forgotten. Eventually they even took on a member of the establishment who sympathized with them, I believe you the reader can figure out who that is. Then something happened with the very last two, Santorum and Gingrich.

In the case of Gingrich, it was finding his old fire as the glorious speaker of the House of Represntatives from 1994-1998. We saw him, in those last days of the election, command the respect that had made him palatable to the Tea Party to begin with. See, Gingrich was never a natural choice, he had BEEN a member of the establishment, and as a result of this fact had to prove himself. Having proved himself, the voters knew how he had proved himself, and when he proved himself once again, he returned.

In the case of Santorum, many people still did not accept Gingrich. He was still dirty, and lets face it, he made many questionable decisions and pseudo-decisions, including support for the Individual Mandate at the federal level, which he calls "a tactical decision against HillaryCare" [divide and conquer?], his decision to support TARP, which is probably more then anything else his university professor side coming out, and his decision to continue supporting social conservatives despite hardly being a role model for them, which, in Georgia, is called winning your election. Being a real politician, he doesn't come out looking real clean. For these malcontents, Santorum and Paul were the remaining choices, and Paul is considered by many to be of questionable judgement and temperament, leading to a vote by elimination for Santorum. Combine some social conservatives and Iowa farmers, and you have Santorum.

Ron Paul voters, of the typical kind, are simply too unique to be explained in this small space. However, in addition to his regular supporters, Ron Paul has received an edge from both malcontents of the kind that supported Santorum, and states where, in this remarkable election, two of the major candidates did not make the ballot, and Romney is still not accepted.

But aside from all of this there is the simple fact that the election is now on. The trajectory candidates were around when there was still time to find someone new - that time is gone. We, the Tea Party, can't replace shooting stars anymore. We are at our last chance. The time is now, the election has begun.

Leading the Party - How Romney would be a disaster for the GOP

The Black highlights significant dips in the Generic Congressional Vote relative to the democrats, while the red lines and green lines indicate where Romneys vote has rapidly increased (red) or staggered to gradual decline (green). Screenshots from RCP Polling Averages, Fair Use, with a few basic visual annotations. I apologize for the hazy quality - Blogger could not fully handle the image.

The RCP Polling average, at realclearpolitics.com, averages a whole series of generally accepted polls while discluding major outliers to form a scientific estimation of the actual vote. Mitt Romneys slip in the polls in June corresponded with an improvement in the Generic Congressional Vote. Later, when Perry also appeared to have many of the same problems to Conservatives and, given the evidence above, others, the Congressional Vote slipped once again. In short, Romney, though popular himself, as a standard-bearer for the greater Republican Party is a disaster, and the fruits of this disaster would show itself in (at best) stagnation in the congressional races of 2012 should he be the nominee. At worse, the Republicans could end up not only failing to take the Senate, but losing the House, as their generic congressional ballot is often underperforming the Democrats.

Most reasonable Republicans agree that getting rid of the Reidosi dominated congress is as important as getting rid of Obama. Romney looks presidential, talks soberly (though I wouldn't say well, as that requires that you actually say something), has a nice suit and nice hair, and isn't Obama. Because of this, a lot of people are willing to vote for him for President. But a lot of those people will also see him as the representative of the Republican Party, and will conclude that it is every bit as corrupt, unethical, lukewarm and openly fat cat Wall Street elitist as it was in 2008. They'll still vote for Romney, because he's not Obama and looks like a President regardless of what he does, but they won't vote for Republican candidates outside of Romney. It will also prevent the discussion of ideas that leads to congressional majorities, instead having a presidential race focused entirely on personalities and handing the congressional races directly over to California Environmentalists and Wisconsin Public Sector Unions.

And why would it be any different? Most Americans, outside of the most venom-filled, unthinking and partisan branches of the Republican party, know that George W. Bush is just as responsible for our nations current situation as Barrack Obama. Romney represents the Republican party of Bush. Romney represents Republicans with no principles, who will do anything to get elected, will accept bribes like Ted Stevens, know nothing about Main Street or the physical economy (Romney is, after all, the quintessential Wall Street number cruncher who thinks that the economy is a math equation) and have no trouble trampling on the rights of ordinary Americans or casting all good economic sense to the wind (including what he actually knows) simply to be "popular."

Romney represents the kind of thinking that forces Americans to buy a private good and favors a gradual government takeover of the economy - something which he has not only done, but seems rather proud of. Romney, frankly, should move to the countries that follow his way of thinking, putting everything in the hands of corrupt elites, namely the Sudan, Burundi, Zimbabwe, Chad, the Central African Republic or any number of other African Kleptocracies. Maybe then he would realize why an Ivy-Leagueized America is not a good idea and that public-private collusion is not a virtue.

And should we elect him, just what will he do? Will the man who inspired Obamas entire economics agenda really depart from them substantially? Will he kowtow and get along well with the Democrat Congress that he helped elect? Just what will he do?

Update 10/9/11 - As Mr. Presidents approval ratings continue to drop in the RCP average to their lowest point ever this week, now approaching that crucial 40% mark, it seems that more and more the legitimate interest of the Republican Party needs to be selecting a man who can lead the entire party to victory in all 50 states. Winning the electoral college by more votes is not going to help the Conservatives govern. Winning the electoral college, and then winning the Senate and House by more, will.

Politics is Comedy

The Clown Chili Peppers. Attb: Rick Dikeman at the English Language Wikipedia, license c.c.a.s.a. 3.0 unported.

Any frequent reader of this blog will know that there are few more enthusiastic supporters of the Tea Party then me, but I must give one mild criticism.

It has often been said that in many ways the Tea Party needs to learn. Being a new "organization" (more like "tribe") this is undoubtedbly true, but what precise due they need to learn? If one says "learn to tax people and give bailouts," then surely we have already seen the fruits of these decisions, the very standing on which the Tea Party was organized against the establishment of the Republican Party. Indeed liberals, your prayers against the hypocrisy of the Bush Administration have been answered.

If one says dealing with racism, while there are certainly racists in the Tea Party (and every other party I might add), I challenge you to give any example where a poilcy that could be considered racist was supported simply because it was racist. You will find none, but rather, a plethora of wasteful, ignorant and dangerous policies that undermined American law and order, or laid waste to our federal budget. It seems once again that the "unwashed masses" are more intelligent then our isolated, and steamed in a lost and perverted academia till no nutrition remained, vegetables of elites.

Rather, there is something far more fundamental, far bigger, and far more important at this moment in time that they must learn. If they do not learn it, they will fragment, and unlike a traditional party the Tea Party has no answer for such a fragmentation, all will be lost, and politics as normal will continue.

To understand what and why, let's step back for a minute and look at a great and foolish debate taking place in the tea party today: whether to increase taxes. It's easy enough to see why this debate would happen, and easy to deride the opposition to doing so. As a Texans put it, and what greater pleasure is there in life then hearing Texans speak, "do you honestly think not going to the mall and not using your credit card will pay off your debt?"It's easy enough to dismiss this crowd as toddlers, infants, those who were born yesterday.

Yet they have a very real intuitive fear, and one that is correct. For every dollar saved from the deficit by "Revenue Increases," there is just a little less pressure on congress to end our dangerous habits. Then there is a little more pressure to expand existing government entities and assets to facilitate new ends, possibly even ends with some merit, bringing us to precisely where we are now 4 years later, with less ability to borrow and, thanks to higher tax rates depreciating our economy, less ability to pay off. This is a very valid fear.

Why is it so hard to believe that one thing can be done at one instant and another at another? If you rearranged the lines in a movie, would they neccesarily make any sense? Or would the very point of the film be lost on its viewers?

Sometimes one must hold a gun to the head, must threaten and coerce, especially when one possesses only one house of congress, and has substantial detractors even among its own adopted party in the other. Sometimes one must also rearrange the scene to rearrange the decision. Politics is not a game for straight-talk or fairplay, especially not when dealing with other politicians, and exceptionally stubborn and heartless ones as we've found.

Politics is an art of timing and discretion. If the claim that increasing tax rates is indeed true, there will come a time for it, but that time is not now, especially since government can also raise revenue by selling government assets, such as public land with substantial mineral and oil reserves or quality soil for farming, and that dilapidating spending not only will help balance the deficit, but can alleviate the burden facing businesses with their excess of regulation and paperwork, a burden that currently equals $10,585 per employee for a small business, and close to $8,000 per employee for larger firms. The cost to our federal budget of regulation is $1.75 trillion, or more then the current budget deficit. This is a figure that comes from the Small Business Administration, a entity that the Obama administration has some ability to control and doctor with spinning.

Not only would selling these lands and relieving these costs to business reduce our deficit through spending cuts, but as Senator Marco Rubio recently pointed out, they would also unleash an economic torrent of growth likely far greater then the "10 day reprieve" the tax increases offer. As one can tell, things are not as they once seemed. The "balanced approach" folks really do not have the sense that the mind would conjure for them. We need to cut spending, and any attempt to raise revenue artificially will only slow such a process and damage the economy. Eventually, revenue will be raised - if we do it right, tax increases may not even be neccesary.

Take your turn, wait your time. It may seem hypocritical, but it's a fight we didn't start and we're in it. Know what to say and when, and realize who it empowers and who it humbles. Control your tongue, and let all the chips fall in place, for "there is a season and place for everything under the sun." (King Solomon, translated from book of Ecclesiastes). Don't let haste make waste, rather realize that politics is comedy, and your power is also a grave responsibility.


WORKERS OF THE WORLD, UNITE!

Article Critique

Open Clip Art Library. Public Domain.

I am not posting this post to the top of my blog list, as it is not, in my mind, 100% original, even though I have violated no laws and plagarized no one in writing it. Rather, it is a critique, and not wanting to be subservient to anyone, I will not post it, under any condition, to the top of my list.

Update 10/12/2010: CNN writes an inferior version of the same article I am critiquing.

I am normally a huge fan of the Guardian. They are quite possibly the greatest left-wing newspaper in the world, with high quality artistic prose, good summaries of important stories, and honest, intelligent editorials from a rational leftists perspective. However, this particular editorial I cannot endorse.

It executes, among other things, a major "No True Scotsmen" fallacy (LOL, it's from Britain) in deciding that opposing people who made irresponsible decisions with their money IS opposing the working and middle class, when these are the very people that the Tea Party seeks to save from growing government inteference, high taxes, a lack of choice and freedom, and worst of all, the stifling of their very spirit as Americans, the spirit that the working-class and the middle-class love more then anyone, their storge, in their darkest hour, keeps them alive, and like a little girl wanting to throw a wildcat in a cage to "take care of it," people like Obama would deprive them of the thing these people love most. The Tea Party, like the working class, opposes the bailouts to bankers and high-flying corporate aristocrats that steal the futures of working class children.

The Tea Party also opposes the partisan industrial complex that was best summarized by Anarchists 6 years ago who chanted, on the eve of the 2004 election, "Bush, Kerry, are the same, the only difference is the name." The PIC has been a curse to the entire continent of North America for many years now, and, among other things, endorsed the spending, corruption and ruinous habits that have both deprived our working class of their jobs and threatened their say in the workings of our democracy, while ruining the careers of politicians, like the Late Washington Congresswoman Jennifer Dunn, who sought to correct the course of our nation from this horrific treason against democracy.

Many readers of this editorial will excuse the errors by saying, "well, they are a far-right doctrine, just like Fascism," and my response to them will be, "no, actually." Here again we have a fallacy of definition. "Right-wing" has been redefined tremendously since the 1940's, is a term whose meaning changes nearly every year. To correctly assess similarities between the Tea Party and the doctrine of Fascism we would have to use the definition of Right-wing that fit Fascism, a definition that includes a state-endorsed aristocracy and elite, collectivization and tyrannical nationalism, the very things that the Tea Party opposes with a passion.

And again the editorials errs by saying, accusingly, "But polling shows that when it comes to poverty, the elderly and education, if anything people want to do more rather than less." For once in a long time, a Gaurdian article has referenced a Washington Post article that is its superior. While it is true that many Tea Party members would be very pleased if certain measures were taken on behalf of the poor, the elderly, and our education system, it is also true that the Tea Party, as a noncentralized grassroots organization very much of the Anarchist spirit, can change course very quickly, and once those who threaten the ability of government to handle its responsiblities well have been politically destroyed, from Republican Mike Castle in Delaware to Democrat Harry Reid in Nevada, the Tea Party can change course quickly, and wield the same power that put Christine O'Donnell on Delawares ballot to assure that our poor are taken care of reasonably well. Like the Great Hordes of Genghis Khan, maneuvers, formations and armor mean nothing to the Tea Party readying for battle on its grassroots steppe and out of its hundreds of buckskin tents.

The ability to make compromises will prove crucial at such a point in deciding whether the Tea Party can survive such a maneuver, though the public opinion and grassroots apparatus alone assure that an attempt will be made, but here I resort to a great French mathematician named Pascal. The worse thing that could happen is that, after destroying these particular Democrats, the Tea Party splits up, and new Democrats (but new ones) ascend to the congressional leadership. If such happens, we have made a powerful statement of the ability of the American people to hold their politicians accountable, and our new liberals will be more rational and responsible, perhaps more like the Guardian when they haven't gone crazy, when they ascend to congressional leadership. The best thing that could happen, on the other hand, is the people destroying the political party as we know it for good, and replacing it with true civic involvement at all levels of legislation. Perhaps even if they do split, they will proceed to conquer the two American parties and subject them to their barbarian rule.

Thus, either way, a Tea Party member wins his wager. Even the conservatives among them will appreciate a more fair and reasonable liberal hand should that happen, and all will appreciate the people rising to leadership if that should happen. Either one of these would be an acceptable goal of and by itself, and they are the set of possibilities. Thus, my congressional democrats - check... mate.

Mike Castle and how to win as a Republican in a rural Yankee state

Downtown Dover, Delaware, Photo by Tim Keiser, under license c.c.a.s.a 2.0 generic

His list of priorities, as listed on his website, are as follows: "Fighting for Delaware", "Jobs", "Energy Independence", "Good Governance", "Education", "Supporting Our Troops", and "Healthcare", in that order and stated in that fashion with bullet points, and lengthy, folksy, passionate discourses below. His opponents are not listed in any particular order, but instead can be selected from a drop down menu, and include "Economy", "Education", "Energy", "Environment", "Financial Reform", "Health Care", "National Security," and finally, "Offshore Oil Drilling", which last time I checked is not a major revenue source for the state of Delaware - stated profesionally, technically, scholastically, transactionally, and without any reference to the state he seeks to represent.

Now, to be fair, this is not displayed on a separate page, but directly on a menu on home, and if you click the "issues" button up top instead of viewing the drop down menu (which you will see first), it goes to a page with little boxes surrounding each issue and stereotypical pictures of what people would think of when they consider that issue, but in no picture is Delaware clearly seen, and your eyes go all over the page, and every time that the words "Delaware" or "Delawarean" are used, they are in small print, below the more important "Energy", "Economy" and "Education"s that are many times their size. The picture of Coons, gazing seriously with the eyes of a hawk, could just as easily be used in a newspaper advertisement for a law firm.

For some time now, Harry Reid has been asking local Democrat senators, such as Mary Landrieu (D-LA), Chris Dodd (D-CT) and Ben Nelson (D-NE), to forsake whatever their constituencies might want for the sake of passing progressive national legislation. When they ask about their own voters, he offers earmarks, and money, to essentially bribe whatever constituency he feels needs to be pulled along. [Source] He points to the use of Republican filibusters as a common enemy, and whips all of them together to march lock step lock step in favor of the agenda that the party as a whole has advanced. Coons mentions Delaware only as a part of the larger whole, like: "Delawareans, as well as the entire country, have felt the effects of the current economic climate." Ad libs off of that phrase could capture the entirety of both Coons', Reids and Pelosis platform.

Like Andrew Jackson before him with his decision to evict a peaceful and economically successful native people, the Cherokees, from the state of Georgia without Georgias consent, Coon sees not 50 individual states, but a larger agenda that he (hopefully) sees Delaware benefiting from, but never the main focus of. Castle has not once taken his eyes off of Delaware, and you can see his very website swelling with state pride.

A full profile of the election from the NY Times seems to show very little optimism on the part of democrats in Delaware, with the appointed replacement to Biden not seeking a full term, nor Bidens relatively popular Attorney General of a son, and RCP shows Castle ahead of Coons by double digits. Castle has been Delawares sole house member for 17 years, and is a moderate Republican used to routinely working with Democrats. More importantly, I suspect, is that he is a true Delawarean, while Coons is the executive of Delawares largest, northernmost and urbane county, essentially an extension of Philadelphia, with nothing in common with the remainder of the state, and no real care for it. The democrats, like Pelosi and like Coons, have lost themselves in the dream, and this will hurt them among rural northeastern townspeople, who clearly believe in representatives representing.

The Gospel of Joseph Stalin, Episode 3: Parable of the Talented Manipulators

Secretary General and Loving Father Stalin, who only sends those who really need it to Siberia to be worked to death. Photo taken by CCCP, public domain for all good comrades. Here

"The federal system is like a slightly violent and paranoid man who travelled to a far away arab nation in need of asskicking, leaving all his various powers to take your money to three servants, assigning it based upon their ability, with the instruction to generate more.

"To Obama he left 10 special interest groups,

"To Reidosi he left 5 special interest groups,

"To Bush, he left only one, the Christian Right.

"Obama came up with 10 more special interest groups, Pelosi used her 5 to get 5 more, but Bush took his and refused to look in to television cameras.

"When the federal system came back, he saw that Obama had generated so much special interest and said, 'Well done my faithful servant, I'm giving you the White House.'

"When he saw how much Reidosi had interested, he said, 'Well done my faithful servant, I'm giving you the Congress.'

"But Bush came to him and said, 'I was afraid, for I knew you were a hard man who reap where other people sow, thus I buried my speical interest group in the ground. Here, take what is yours!'

"But he said, "So you knew I was a hard man who reaps where other people sow! Therefore, you should've used the IRS to pay for other peoples earmarks!"

"'But I did do that!'

"'No you didn't damn it! Everyone loves earmarks!'

"'I honestly did do that! Haven't you talked the budget office lately? Look at how high the debt is! Aren't you proud of me?'

"'NO! I'm never proud of failures! And besides, what kind of idiot uses OTHER PEOPLES interest groups to advance himself?'

"And then they took the worthless servant, and cut him in two, and there was much rejoicing.

"Assuredly, I say unto you, whoever has much in this year will have much in the election to come, and to him who has little, even what he has will be taken away!"

The Gospel of Joseph Stalin, Episode 1: Lazarus and Obama

Secretary General and Loving Father Stalin, who only sends those who really need it to Siberia to be worked to death. Photo taken by CCCP, public domain for all good comrades. Here

"There was once a very succesful politician who feasted sumptuously on the contributions of political lobbyists everyday. Outside his door was a politically hated Leper named the Republican Party. The Leper was very sick, and had nothing to eat in years since he was deemed unclean by the entire population of the world 4 years ago.

"Everyday he waited outside of the succesful politicians doors, asking only for the scraps given to the Europeans and Iranians. Worse, the Europeans and Iranians, after eating said scraps, licked his sores and called him a nitwit. Later that year, he caught a terrible case of Teaitis, and passed away. Teaitis is contagious, and so the succesful politician caught it too, along with a bunch of Illegal Immigrants in Arizona, and was laid to rest in a healthcare plan.

"The Leper was carried to the bosom of Sarah Palin, to a supremely comfortable midterm election with lots of lobbyists to provide them with everything they want, even Learjets! Meanwhile, the succesful poltician was burned over and over again in Political Hell by his own Death Panels. He cried out "Mother Palin, have mercy on me! Come send the Lazarus person with a large batch of Earl Grey to put out these flames all over me and make me think I still have Arugula money!"

"But Mother Palin replied, "Son, you had nothing but good things a couple Novembers ago, while he had nothing but bad, but beyond that, we would love to help you Dem man, but a great Gulf of Mexico has been fixed between us, so that anyone who goes there is considered an asshole, and anyone who comes here is considered a paranoid freak who most assuredly is far too paranoid and radical to do anything irresponsible with free money, I mean, campaign funds."

Who cares?

White House Photo of Bush 43 courtesy of EO-POTUS, public domain

I won't be posting much for a little while, as a major round of exams at GT just came in to study for, but before I head off to glory I wanted to post about something I've noticed in political discussion lately.

A lot of democrats, including at least one commenter on this site, continue to obsess about what Bush 43 did and how it screwed over America. My response is simple: "No one cares!" Bush doesn't have power anymore.

Regardless of who started the fire, there are people out there who believe Obama is pouring gasoline on the flames. I'm not going to say whether he is or he isn't - I'll leave that for you to decide - but what's happened with Bush is over and honestly, it is quite intelligent of the American people to disregard such quibbling in their reasoning. It doesn't matter how bad things were when Obama got them, everyone is asking, is Obama making them better?

Not everyone will answer yes.

Cap-And-Trade Roll-Call - Naming the Guilty

In this weeks house roll call vote to push through Cap and Trade, the democrats passed the bill 219-211. But 8 GOP congressmen defected! Now, this is still considerably less then the number of Dems who defected (hence the margin being narrow) but nonetheless, it is clear that some of our conservative friends should have a guilty conscience. If only four of those GOP congresssmen had stuck to their side of the aisle, the vote would have been a tie. Three of these GOP congressmen are from New Jersey.

Well, one truly guilty face is Seattle's own Dave Reichert. Representing the 8th District, and the only Republican congressioanl district West of the Mountians in Washington State, Reichert has long been known to be considerably more environmentalist then is normal for a Republican. In a previous life, he was awarded Sheriff of the Year in 2004 for his exceptional conduct as King County Sheriff, including catching the Green River Killer, but has since held few significant policy stands or achievements.

Another guilty face is Matt Kirk in his district to the north of Chicago. Like Reichert, he too has been known to support environmentalism. His agenda, however, is much more clearly suburban. Both Reichert & Kirk's districts are Obama Republican, meaning that despite a Republican congressman, they voted for Obama in the Presidential election.

Mary Bono Mack's district in Southern California also voted for Obama, but by only 51%, unlike 60% for each of Reichert & Kirk's districts. The district used to be clearly Republican, but in recent years has slid more and more liberal. She is a fiscal-environmentalist conservative who has won simultaneous awards from both Sunline Transit Agency & Americans for Tax Reform.

Our fourth fiend is Mike Castle from Delaware's At-Large district. He's mostly a social conservative anyways, representing a state that is liberal to the bone, a district even more liberal then those previously mentioned.

Chris Smith of New Jersey's 4th has considerably less of an excuse. His district voted a comfortable 52% for McCain in 2008 and 56% for Bush in 2004. He, however, is primarilly a social conservative, being a major figure in the pro-life movement and the author of several antiabortion bills. He has strong ties to ORGANIZED LABOR, and as such can be considered a member of the Christian Left.


Congressman John McHugh represents the 23rd District of New York as a Republican moderate. He recently received several earmarks in a defense appropriation bill that he celebrates on his website...

Representative Lance of New Jersey's 7th votes with his party 88% of the time, making this particular exception somewhat odd. On his website, he justifies this vote with his strong commitment to renewable energy. Overall, however, he has very little policy information (total: 10 long sentences, though 4 on the environment) on his website (circa 06-27-09) and so one finds his sincerity of intent questionable. His district is obviosly very gerrimandered, like an ameoba on his district map, and has not had a Democrat representative since 1980. Its' median income is 75 grand.

Lastly, Representative Frank LoBiondo of New Jerseys 2nd (includes Atlantic City) voted in support of this bill. LoBiondo is a member of Newt Gingrich's freshmen class, having taken his seat in the 1994 congressional sweep after a failed 1992 run. He is a member of the moderate "Republican Main Street Partnership." Unlike Lance, his policy stands are very detailed, almost too detailed, and his "news" section on his website holds very candid and angry stands on almost every detail of Economic, Energy, Defense, Veterans, and legislation related to local beaches.

Ahn Cao, interestingly, did not vote for it, despite being a moderate republican from an obscenely liberal district (Downtown New Orleans, voted 85% for Barack Obama, 65% African American). He also did not vote for the stimulus, and, according to Orange Juice, may be facing a recall attempt as a result. This immigrant came to America as the son of a former South Vietnamese army officer, attended law school after almost becoming a Catholic Priest, and built his own law firm in New Orleans.


CONCLUSION

Of the 8 who did vote for Cap and Trade, Smith, Bono Mack, Lance, and McHugh would probably have been the easiest to persuade. Reichert is a maybe, as is Kirk. The other two could not have been persuaded, as one district was too liberal.